There has been evidence that a third
party, not the defendant, committed the crime[s] with which the defendant is
charged. This evidence is not intended to prove the guilt of the third party,
but is part of the total evidence for you to consider. The burden remains on
the state to prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt.

It is up to you, and to you alone, to
determine whether any of this evidence, if believed, tends to directly connect a
third party to the crime[s] with which the defendant is charged. If after a
full and fair consideration and comparison of all the evidence, you have left in
your minds a reasonable doubt indicating that the alleged third party, <insert
name of third party>, may be responsible for the crime[s] the defendant is
charged with committing, then it would be your duty to render a verdict of not
guilty as to the accused, <insert name of defendant>.

Commentary

In State v. Arroyo, 284
Conn. 597, 608-609 (2007), the Court considered for the first time "the standard
to be applied to a defendant's request for a jury instruction on third party
culpability evidence when such evidence has been introduced." After reviewing
the rules governing the admission of such evidence, the Court concluded that the
same standard should apply when determining whether a defendant is entitled to
a jury instruction on third party culpability. "[I]f the evidence pointing to a
third party's culpability, taken together and considered in the light most
favorable to the defendant, establishes a direct connection between the third
party and the charged offense, rather than merely raising a bare suspicion that
another could have committed the crime, a trial court has a duty to submit an
appropriate charge to the jury." Id., 610. "[E]vidence that establishes a
direct connection between a third party and the charged offense is relevant to
the central question before the jury, namely, whether a reasonable doubt exists
as to whether the defendant committed the offense. Evidence that would raise
only a bare suspicion that a third party, rather than the defendant, committed
the charged offense would not be relevant to the jury's determination." Id.,
609-10. See State v. Baltas, 311 Conn. 786, 809-14 (2014)
(evidence that third party was at the crime scene not sufficient to provide a
credible alternative explanation for the substantial forensic evidence against
the defendant); State v. Berger, 249 Conn. 218, 234-38 (1999) (discussing
the relationship of third party culpability to reasonable doubt in a case in
which the state's theory was that the defendant and the third party acted
together).